If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Are we too hard/picky?

I think folks are too hard on the present.

People keep downplaying the 61-win season. After all, the Western Conference was the stronger conference that year, right? The East was weak!

But just like every other time that I see one of these threads mention the 61-win season and the possibility of downplaying it, I will continue to point out that the Pacers were the strongest regular season team that year, period. We had a better record against the WC teams than did any team from the WD itself. We had a better record against any division than any team within the division itself.

But Kstat is definitely right. Several years ago, the NBA was extremely inbalanced, year after year after year. Despite the record that the Pistons have this season, there is better parity across the top 1/2 to 3/4 of the league now than there has ever been.

Re: Are we too hard/picky?

I think a great deal of these types of arguments are brought on my "Devil's Advocate" threads. If somebody says that Jeff Foster is a great rebounder, somebody just as quickly will pipe in that he pads his stats with his awful shot. However, much like your scenario, rarely is the same test applied evenly. I'd venture to say that most rebounding specialists aren't great shooters (Ben Wallace, Dale Davis, Dennis Rodman, etc.)

Part of it is fun, because looking at dissenting opinions will either increase your support of your current position or make you reconsider. But some of the things get a bit ridiculous at times.

Re: Are we too hard/picky?

The top 1/4 of the NBA back then was stacked with great players. It wasn't that the bad teams were that bad, it was that the good teams were just great.

If you check the bottom of the standings, almost all the bad teams had at least one great player on them as well.

the 30-win bulls had Charles Oakley and Orlando Woolridge, and they only won 30 games because Jordan missed 70 games with a sprained ankle.

The 23-win Knicks had Patrick Ewing and Bernard King, two of the all-time greats.

Charles Oakley and Orlando Woolridge? Great players?

And on another note, in ten years we'll be able to look back and name "great players" on most 2005-2006 NBA teams because we will recognize them from their entire career. There are players on the Chicago Bulls, Washington Wizards, etc. who are now early in their careers or simply haven't been recognized as "great" just yet.

Re: Are we too hard/picky?

And on another note, in ten years we'll be able to look back and name "great players" on most 2005-2006 NBA teams because we will recognize them from their entire career. There are players on the Chicago Bulls, Washington Wizards, etc. who are now early in their careers or simply haven't been recognized as "great" just yet.

Who called either player "great?"

It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

Re: Are we too hard/picky?

You are forgetting one simple thing. The weak/strong East/West argument is ridiculous if you judge only by the number of wins.

Clearly, if one team has 60 wins, lots of others will have loosing record. May be you can judge West against East, but not the way you done.
The East had low number of teams with winning record during Indiana 61 winning game season because they lost to Indiana! The same applies to 1986. So you can say that the teams with winning record above 60 are better relative to other teams playing at the same time. However, you can't say anything about those teams with loosing records relative to todays. Thats a simle math.

So all this weak/strong arguments are not right IMO. What I can say as a fan, is that basketball was more enterntaining back in 80's. Today teams Vs 80-90's are winning in athletism but loosing in skill IMO.

Re: Are we too hard/picky?

Well, I don't know why you mentioned the other two,
but ANYway....Jordan was the Kobe of his day back then (minus the bad reputation). In fact Kobe is scarier now scoring-wise than Jordan at that time IMO, but Kobe's team still stinks. So looking back in twenty years we'll see the great Kobe Bryant on a bad Lakers team (along with Odom, who we ALSO may see as great depending on how his career pans out). Will we say,"Wow!The competition must have been fantastic back then, the Lakers couldn't even win with those two on the roster!" History is funny that way.

Oh, yeah, and Lithfan, I'm no good at math, but your reasoning seems excellent to me. There are only so many wins to go, around so to speak.
And as far as the 80's style of play--I miss it so much it hurts!!!

Re: Are we too hard/picky?

But just like every other time that I see one of these threads mention the 61-win season and the possibility of downplaying it, I will continue to point out that the Pacers were the strongest regular season team that year, period. We had a better record against the WC teams than did any team from the WD itself. We had a better record against any division than any team within the division itself.

When reviewing the weekly Power Rankings that year, it annoyed me that the Pacers could never seem to get the No. 1 spot because of constant focus by the writers of the overall weakness in the East. The Twolves, Kings, Lakers and Spurs took turns rotating throughout the top 5 over the Pacers, who were routinely ranked No. 2. When the Pacers went out West and won 3 of 4 over top teams, their sole loss would be emphasized. By season's end, the Pistons and Rasheed had come on strong, but they too were regarded as inferior by the ranking writers.

I know, it serves me for caring at all about so shallow a thing as the Power Rankings back then, but beast's post reminded me of an annoying memory of that season.

Re: Are we too hard/picky?

^^^^
Yeah, I've learned that no matter how good your team is, you don't ever think you get the national respect you deserve. (Unless the team is the Colts, then all the attention becomes embarrassing in the end).

Re: Are we too hard/picky?

Re: Are we too hard/picky?

When you show me people picking on the Pacers *after* they've won a championship, at that time the answer is "yes."

Until then, it seems to me that the average Pacers fan isn't really demanding a championship. They're demanding entertaining, or a certain style of play that appeals to "Hoosiers." Or they're demanding a contender. Or they're demanding a team that they can still afford tickets to see.

I'd say we are still too soft on them, if anything. Too many fans are still making excuses for them.

I'm not saying the PD community reflects the average Pacers fan, BTW. Now, if we had 15,000 season ticket holders on here, that might be different.

Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
And life itself, rushing over me
Life itself, the wind in black elms,
Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

Re: Are we too hard/picky?

Jay and Bball, I think you blur the line between "being hard on a team" and "what you are happy with from your team". What I mean is, there is saying "61 wins was great for what it was, but we still didn't win the title so I'm not fully satisfied," and then there is saying, "61 wins didn't mean much because it was a weak East, it was a matter of circumstance, no competition, etc." Not a giant leap between those two, but I see a difference.

Personally I don't like either thought that much. I was thrilled with that season. I didn't like how it ended. I want more. But that does not for one second take away the joy that I had from having such a good team that year.

Re: Are we too hard/picky?

Personally I don't like either thought that much. I was thrilled with that season. I didn't like how it ended. I want more. But that does not for one second take away the joy that I had from having such a good team that year.

Maybe it was the subsequent seasons that sucked the joy out of it...

-Bball "Off to the game after some stops along the way"

Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

------

"A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

Re: Are we too hard/picky?

Yea, I think since there's just so much more tools to utilize and with the advancement of basketball as a science and just the whole growth of the sport, we are harder on ourselves nowadays. Just look at this forum, what used to be just every average Homer 20 years ago, now sit infront of the computer at least for 15 minutes a day talking about basketball as if it were their day jobs. (myself included ofcourse) Advancement is always better though. The only thing I think really that the "old skool" have on us is their real love for the sport, dedication to win and toughness.